4 Current Controversies
10. At the end of 2005, there were suggestions in
the media that honours had been awarded improperly. These took
the form of two major allegations. The first was that the House
of Lords Appointments Commission (hereafter the Appointments Commission)
had advised against certain nominees on the latest list of working
peers put forward by the Prime Minister. The second was a Sunday
Times story alleging that Des Smith, a council member of the Specialist
Schools and Academies Trust that helps recruit sponsors for academies,
had disclosed that, if a donor gave sufficient money, he could
be nominated for an honour.[8]
The media noted that a number of those nominated to the peerage
and for other honours were also benefactors of city academy schools.
11. These stories were given a further twist when
it was revealed that political parties had been soliciting loans
from potential donors, allegedly as a way of circumventing the
legal requirement for political parties to declare donations or
contributions above £5,000 under the Political Parties Elections
and Referendums Act 2000. Four of those lenders also appeared
on the nomination list for working peers, three of whom were among
those reportedly "blocked" by the Appointments Commission.
12. Faced with these controversies, the Prime Minister
announced on 23 March that he would no longer add his own names
to the honours list.[9]
However, the system for appointing working peers would remain
unchanged pending the second stage of House of Lords reform, with
the party leaders continuing to put forward names to the Appointments
Commission. The new Leader of the Commons, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP,
has been charged with taking second stage Lords reform forward.
At the same time Sir Hayden Phillips, the former Permanent Secretary
of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has been asked to
undertake consultations with the political parties with the aim
of reaching a consensus on party funding reforms.
13. In the meantime, the new list of working peers
was published on 11 April. Those individuals whose names had appeared
in the media as having been "blocked" by the Appointments
Commission did not appear on it, in some cases having already
publicly withdrawn themselves from consideration.
14. We welcome
the Prime Minister's announcement of 23 March that he will no
longer add his own names to the twice-yearly honours lists which
have already been subject to scrutiny by the independent committees.
This decision will help to reinforce the propriety and independence
of the system. It is a practice which we trust will be continued
by future Prime Ministers.
8 "Revealed: cash for honours scandal", and
"Yes, we would nominate Malcolm", The Sunday Times,
15 January 2006 Back
9
HC Deb, 23 March 2006, col 34WS Back
|
